Pages

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Refuting God is Imaginary: #1

Let’s think carefully about proof #1 and see if succeeds in showing that god is imaginary. If it does, that’s big news; we’d have found out something very interesting.
We may express proof #1 succinctly as follows:

Premise 1: According to the Bible, if we ask for all cancer to be cured, it will be.

Premise 2: But, if we ask for all cancer to be cured, it won’t be cured.

Therefore: The God of the Bible is imaginary.

Let’s start by thinking about the logic of this argument.
Suppose its premises are true. It then follows that at least some of the
Bible’s statements about prayer are mistaken. But now notice that the
conclusion says more than that. It says that the God of the Bible
is imaginary. How does that follow from the premises? To reach that
conclusion, we need an additional premise—something like this:

Premise 3: If some of the Bible’s statements about prayer are mistaken, then the God of the Bible is imaginary.

Now it’s worth pointing out that the author of proof #1 doesn’t even
discuss anything like Premise 3. It appears to be a background
assumption. But for the proof to succeed, Premise 3, or something like
it, needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise, the argument is logically
invalid: the conclusion doesn’t follow from its premises.
My sense is that the vast majority of people would find Premise 3
implausible. After all, it seems perfectly possible for a morally
perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing being described by the Bible to be
real whether or not the Bible itself makes mistakes. So, Premise 3 is questionable (to say the least).
Someone might reply that perhaps “the God of the Bible” just means “the God that would exist if the entire Bible were true.” In that case, Premise 3 would be axiomatic. However, then the conclusion would be compatible
with there being a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being.
And certainly any argument that’s compatible with there being a
perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being is not an argument that God is imaginary.
So, if proof #1 is indeed an argument that God is imaginary, then it
relies on a dubious premise; therefore, proof #1 fails to establish its
conclusion. It seems, then, that reflective truth-seekers wouldn’t be
moved by it.
We could stop here. The proof fails to establish what it claims to establish.
But the proof fails in more ways than one. According to this proof,
the Bible’s statements on prayer imply that God would cure all of cancer
on account of our prayers. But the proof fails to rule out (or even
consider) the following possibility: background conditions on prayer are implicit in the text.
Consider that according to Matthew’s account, Jesus says, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” He goes on: “not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. 26:39).
And elsewhere, he says, “This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven… your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:9-10).
It appears that Jesus thinks prayers must be possible to answer (so, no asking for square circles). And prayers must accord with God’s will.
Why, then, does Jesus say that “everyone who asks receives”? A standard answer, which proof #1 fails to address, is that background conditions on prayer are implicit and would have been understood by his audience.
Indeed, that’s exactly what Jesus’ earliest followers thought: the Johanine text says that we know that we have what we ask for if we ask according to his will (John 5:14-15).
Now it certainly does seem good for all cancer to be cured. But the
crucial question is this: could God instantly cure all cancer without
thereby forfeiting a higher good? That’s a difficult question, and proof #1 doesn’t even attempt to answer it.
For all that proof #1 says, it may be that our fighting
against cancer with mental and physical energy forges courage,
compassion, and unique and special relationships between everlasting
beings. What if some cancer allows us to become heroes in loving
others? More generally, what if a finite stage of suffering can act as a
means to certain everlasting bonds of love that far outweigh that
suffering?
These are admittedly complex and difficult questions, with many books and articles devoted to them. So, if someone claims to prove
that suffering cannot act as a means to outweighing goods, he better
have a carefully spelled out argument to back that up; otherwise,
reflective truth-seekers won’t be moved. Proof #1 offers us nothing of
the sort; therefore, it fails in to establish its premises.

A Real God isn’t a Magical God

Jesus compares faith to a seed, not a magical wand. Seeds grow with time to produce fruit. There’s a process. And some methods of cultivation are more effective than others.

Truth is often
complicated. Therefore, when a perfect being speaks truth, this being
should sometimes speak about complex matters. What he says should
sometimes baffle the simple-minded, while being discernible to the
wise.

The scientific studies we have on prayer are actually compatible with
a “realistic” interpretation of the biblical statements on prayer
(contrary to what GII says). The only catch is this: some types of prayers appear to be more effective than others.
The least effective ones seem to be prepackaged, one time prayers, from
a distance for people one doesn’t know or care much about. A famous 2006 study
indicates this. But when people pray fervently for people they care
about, then the statistics change: such prayers have a statistical
effect. Truth-seekers may wish to investigate studies referenced here and here.
Proof #1 is too simple. Its view of God is too simple. Its
interpretation of Jesus’ statements is too simple. In a nutshell: it
fails to address the possibility that a perfect, rational being might
reveal complex layers of truth that truth-seekers may grow in their understanding of.

Blogs I Follow

About Me

I am a proud supporter of F.S.S.P., Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and Dominican spirituality; as such, I have taken personal promises (but not formal vows) of obedience, chastity, poverty and allegiance to the Pope. I acknowledge only the authority of the Douay-Rheims Bible and the Latin Vulgate. I have consecrated myself to the Holy Mother as written by St Louis De Montfort. I have personally taken the oath against modernism written by St Pius X.I have completed the Jesuit spiritual exercises. I believe everything the Baltimore Catechism, the Trent Catechism, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the Nicene, the Apostles and Athanasian Creed say.